[governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC

[Dan Krimm]

At 7:03 AM -0700 4/20/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>Dan,
>
>You say, which I agree with that what we are really talking about is
>some form of "political representation" (and if you want to know my
>"agenda", it is that I believe that the broader societal influence and
>significance of this form of political representation is likely to
>increase very dramatically in the not too distant future and that if it
>continues to be the more or less exclusive preserve of a very clubby and
>socially narrow set of techies then there will be all hell to pay...

I definitely concur on wanting to avoid the clubby thing.  So, one goal
here seems to be to make sure the representational process is appropriately
broad, capturing every natural person who needs to be represented without
going overboard into the realm of devices.



>So its important to get some of these things on the table and try to get
>them right while there is still some (probably remote) possibility of
>doing that...
>
>In this context then we are talking about "political representation"
>which according to what you have indicated below:
>	1. consists of "natural persons" whose only realistic mode of
>identification/verification is via a means which doesn't seem (at least
>to me) to offer any way to determine whether this "natural person"
>representative is "natural", a sensor, or a dog (q.v. the New Yorker)...

I don't know exactly what modes of ID/verification are available in this
context.  I suppose strictly speaking you haven't yet verified that I am
not a robot/avatar, unless this exchange qualifies as an instance of the
Turing Test...  However, I am personally acquainted with several others on
this list, including Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, and Wendy Seltzer.  ;-)



>	2. is assigned some form of Internet "citizenship" as a result
>of this status but so far one without any definition of what the
>attendant rights or responsibilities of that citizenship might be apart
>from the right to make what would appear to be one way complaints
>to/about ICANN (shades of The Castle--Kafka)

I'm still learning about ICANN's representational processes, such as they
are, but it appears the primary role of the various advisory groups and
constituencies is precisely to voice opinions about policies and practices
at ICANN.  If many of those opinions are complaints, it is probably because
there isn't so much time as to constantly compliment the things it does
right, plus the fact that there is quite obviously room for improvement
(and one form of improvement may be recusal from certain domains of
activity).  I wouldn't suppose that anyone at ICANN thinks it is perfect
just yet, even its greatest proponents.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
:-)



>	3. is based on a form of assigned status/prescribed role (i.e.
>that of the "individual user") which refuses to take account of how that
>use is actually undertaken in the real world (in many cases
>collaboratively, through dyads, by communities etc.etc.)
>
>(Its you who are introducing the nature of definition of "political
>standing" (Internet use) and then rather than accepting the implications
>of this (giving politcal standing to who or what is actually undertaking
>the use), you are interposing what seems to be an ideological bias in
>insisting that the "users" must be "individuals", when in fact in many
>instances the "user" is not an "individual" at all (except possibly
>through the for now, artifact of individual keyboarding).

I would contend that my "bias" is not ideological, it is merely contextual.

The context (as I understand it) is primarily to design a representational
process for natural persons.  Thus, natural persons are the fundamental
element of representation here.  This is where we start, this is our "base
set" or "universe/domain" (cf. Norbert's recent comments).

We then move on to "which particular policy domain" within the
natural-person universe: that of Internet policy as it affects those
natural persons.  So we are talking about the subset of all natural persons
who are somehow involved in using the Internet, however that may be.

The *nature* of that "use" seems totally irrelevant to me with regard to
the question of *what kind of entity* is represented -- it is merely a
qualifier applied to the original universe/set.  Any use that involves any
natural person and the Internet seems enough to me to qualify the natural
person as an Internet "user".  I see utterly no reason that the nature of
the use should enter the picture in this particular context (the narrow
question of standing for representation).  The idea here is to cast a wide
net, to capture *any natural persons who have some direct interest in
Internet policy* (I suppose: "who are not already captured in some other
ICANN constituency or advisory group" ...  context, again).

You may consider this to be "ideological" but I consider it to be sensible.
At some point, the full universe of natural persons could eventually enter
the set of representation, because society as a whole has an interest in
Internet policy as the Internet permeates society ever more deeply over
time.  But for now, it's fair enough to confine the set to those natural
persons with some direct involvement with the Internet, even if only
sporadic, collective, etc.  Some of those people will eventually grow to
have more consistent access or more individual use, but perhaps only if the
right policies are enacted with regard to the Internet, so the interest
here is not only current but potential.  Nevertheless, perhaps for now we
can step back from the full potential which is to represent *all natural
persons on the planet* with regard to Internet policy.

(Note: Karl's warning about legal persons is well-taken.  I am reluctant
about that idea, but given the realities of current legal paradigms it may
have to be dealt with somehow.  Of course, they could get their own
separate process of representation without folding into ALAC or NCUC.)



>	4. I agree with your statements concerning the nature of the
>relationship between citizenship and poltical representation, the
>problem is that there really isn't any relationship between the first
>part of your argument and your second except your evident belief that
>there is one.

I hope my comments directly above clarify that.



>All this to say that I don't think that one can build any useful
>structure of "political representation" on the basis of really vague and
>ultimately undefinable notions of "individual user" (which seems to be
>an attempt to conflate the notion of "individual user" with Internet
>citizenship).
>
>However, that being said, continuing forward and having representation
>being done by "self-selected individual Internet activists" is probably
>no worse than any other and doesn't preclude the development of some
>more robust and ultimately democratic structures alongside the current
>admittedly extremely formative processes.

Maybe it would be better if ICANN didn't even try to do this sort of thing
in the first place, and left all of the political considerations to other
forums.  I agree that the representational structure currently at large at
ICANN is clubby and imperfect, and I don't see how that could ever be fixed
under any model similar to the current one, as ICANN is still a private
corporation with only the MoU to tie it tenuously to any form of genuine
political representation in the first place.

So I do agree with your last sentence:  Given the current ICANN structure,
there is no obvious way to create a truly representative structure of
political representation inside ICANN, and it will definitely be
self-selecting in many ways (the activists on the corporate side are
equally self-selected, for example).

So, I see two parallel tracks (as apparently several others here do as
well, even yourself):

 * Inside: use what structure of representation there is currently at ICANN
to advocate for workable policies and push back against unworkable
policies, especially in terms of removing political domains from ICANN's
consideration in the first place.

 * Outside: try to put together a genuinely representative political
structure to deal with the political issues (i.e., IGF, perhaps this
Framework Convention idea, etc.).

I see more agreement here than disagreement.  I hope you understand my
stance with regard to "Internet users" better now.  No need to make things
more complicated than necessary, as Wendy suggested earlier.

Best,
Dan


>
>Best,
>
>MG
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: April 19, 2007 8:20 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>
>
>At 7:11 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>Okay, so you are suggesting, in "policy making processes surrounding
>>the Internet" we have universal suffrage including in this instance
>>basically anyone/everyone--every age, status and so on (and for all we
>>know, as has been stated by others sensors, robots, avatars --
>>literally who knows what...)
>
>No, natural persons only (perhaps "legal persons" as well, but not
>machines).  I guess you would have to identify natural persons through
>some method other than purely net-based functions.  But really, there
>would have to be some process of political representation, because you
>can't have 6 billion people effectively participating in policy making
>for a single policy domain.  You'd never get through the email.  :-)
>
>
>
> No links to a set of rights/obligations/norms/rules
>>as for example is the case of "normal" citizenship.
>
>Uh, yes exactly: "normal" citizenship.  Where did you get the idea that
>it would be anything else?  I certainly said nothing of the sort, and I
>don't believe that anything I said implies that.  This is precisely the
>point.
>
>
>
>>Also, your definition of "user" seems to miss the point of my examples
>>which were precisely that the users in the instances I quoted were
>>users only because of and through the fact of their relationship to the
>
>>other (and the participation of the other in the particular use)--the
>>child in the one instance and the other members of the community in the
>
>>other case. That is, the notion in these cases of "individual users"
>>makes little or no sense since the "individual user" in those instances
>
>>is defined by the specific "use" which is collaborative.
>
>I wholly disagree that "use" and "user" define the same entities.  If an
>individual person is making use of the Internet, even totally in
>collaboration with others, how is that person not involved in using the
>Internet?  The use determines whether the person is in or out of the
>domain, but the political standing is still given to the individual
>person, because individual people enter into political representational
>processes.
>
>
>
>>And dare I say, that my point is precisely to suggest that the basis of
>>participation in policy making based for example on "use" has to take
>>fully into account the fact that for many (in fact I would probably
>>argue that now for most) Internet users, the uses that are being made
>>and thus the basis of the participation that they would in fact wish to
>
>>make, would be collective rather than in your terms "individual".
>
>The policy must certainly take into account the nature of use.  The
>political standing need not.  The point is about individual standing,
>not type of use.  All users should have individual political standing,
>regardless of the nature of their use.
>
>
>
>>And please note that I am not arguing here for (or against)
>>"organizational" participation but rather to say that introducing
>>highly culturally specific notions of "individualism" into this domain
>>probably diverts us from the rather more difficult but in the long term
>
>>more significant challenges involved in developing some realistic and
>>universally applicable structures and processes of "participating in
>>Internet policy making".
>
>It's not a "culturally specific notion of individualism" -- it is a
>context specific definition, relevant to the context of identifying
>"citizenship" standing in a process of human political representation.
>In politics, natural persons have standing.  (Maybe "legal persons" also
>have standing, but I am not aware that any avatars, robots or other
>non-sentient systems are legal persons, etc.  As Wendy said, when we get
>there, we can deal with it then.  So far there is no "Star Trek Lt.
>Commander Data" to prompt the legal clarification.)
>
>Dan
>
>PS -- I have to confess, I don't fully understand the confusion here,
>unless there is an unspoken agenda that I am not yet aware of.
>
>
>
>>MG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>>Sent: April 19, 2007 5:46 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>>
>>
>>Each individual natural person is an individual user, even when working
>>collaboratively, I would think.  They each individually have an
>>interest in their use (both collective and individual) of the Internet.
>>
>>Distinguish users from uses (and certainly from "accounts").  Even when
>>use is collective, users are individuals.
>>
>>For example, parent/child homework collaboration: two individual users.
>>And as Robert points out, even if a user does not have an individual
>>account and has only sporadic and constrained access to the Internet,
>>that does not preclude the person from being an individual user.
>>
>>This is a qualitative question, not quantitative.  The goal is not to
>>estimate the size of the Internet market, or to break out the
>>functional components of the Internet system.
>>
>>The point is to establish standing of natural persons to participate in
>>policy making processes, surrounding the Internet.
>>
>>Context shapes categorization.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>At 4:17 PM -0700 4/19/07, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>>>In the instance where a child is working with the parent to do a
>>>homework assignment--who is the "individual" user--or is it not the
>>>family; or a village is using its single access point as a way of
>>>acquiring information concerning the location and method for digging a
>
>>>well for the collective benefit of the community.
>>>
>>>MG
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>>Sent: April 19, 2007 9:33 AM
>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the principle that silence is consent, if my argument is valid
>>>> then
>>>
>>>> could I suggest that the notion of "individual internet user" in
>>>> fact is more or less without content as it could either mean anyone,
>
>>>> since
>>
>>>> anyone could be an anonymous cybercafe or cell phone Internet surfer
>>>> (or no one in particular--who would know or could make any
>>>> judgements
>>
>>>> in this regard);  or it should necessarily include some sorts of
>>>> collective groupings i.e. families, communities etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>The notion of individual users matters a lot in the context of
>>>representation. It is not the same if individuals have a right to
>>>participate in ICANN or if they need to join an organization such as
>>>an
>>
>>>ISOC chapter to have a say.
>>>
>>>I don't understand how a family could form an individual user. Are you
>>>perhaps confusing users with email accounts?
>>>
>>>jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>(individuals as collectives
>>>> hmmm...-and then who speaks for them and how are the "interests" of
>>>> these collectives to be represented, as collectives or as
>>>> collections
>>
>>>> of individuals etc.etc.).
>>>>
>>>> In a global environment where on the one hand Internet "use" is
>>>> becoming more or less pervasive and on the other where the notion of
>
>>>> who or what constitutes "the individual" is highly culturally (and
>>>> even politically) determined, could I humbly suggest that some other
>
>>>> mode of delineating participation in this aspect of Internet
>>>> governance be formulated.
>>>>
>>>> MG
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>> Malthouse
>>>> Sent: April 19, 2007 6:36 AM
>>>> To: NA Discuss
>>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC and NCUC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: http://alac.icann.org/
>>>> ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for
>>>> considering and providing advice on the activities of the Internet
>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), as they relate
>>>> to
>>>
>>>> the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large"
>>>> community). ICANN, as a private sector, non-profit corporation with
>>>> technical management responsibilities for the Internet's domain name
>
>>>> and address system, will rely on the ALAC and its supporting
>>>> infrastructure (At-Large groups all over the world) to involve and
>>>> represent in ICANN a broad set of individual user interests.
>>>>
>>>> From: http://www.ncdnhc.org/
>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for civil
>>>> society organizations in ICANN's Generic Names Supporting
>>>> Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN, it develops
>>>> and
>>
>>>> supports Internet policies that favor noncommercial communication
>>>> and
>>
>>>> activity on the Internet, and it participates in the selection of
>>>> ICANN Board members.
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>!DSPAM:2676,46283181273381517018951!
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance